Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

01/15/93 LOUIS B. YOUMANS RESPONDENT A MEMBER BAR

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS


January 15, 1993

IN RE: LOUIS B. YOUMANS, RESPONDENT; A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

Before Steadman, Schwelb and Sullivan, Associate Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

PER CURIAM: In January, 1991, respondent pled guilty in New Jersey to four criminal offenses, including conspiracy to commit theft by deception, *fn1 and was subsequently disbarred by consent from the New Jersey Bar. Before us is a report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent be disbarred both on the basis of the imposition of reciprocal discipline under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11, and of his conviction of a crime of moral turpitude under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) (1989). *fn2 Respondent has not appeared at any stage of the proceedings to contest this action, and we see no reason to dispute the Board's analysis. *fn3

The Board concluded that respondent's disbarrment by consent based on his criminal convictions for serious offenses plainly supports reciprocal disbarrment in this jurisdiction, see In re White, 605 A.2d 47 (D.C. 1992), and found that none of the factors under our Bar rule that might prevent imposition of reciprocal discipline appears to exist. The Board also found that at least respondent's conviction for theft by deception was a per se "offense involving moral turpitude" under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a). *fn4 It noted that larceny and theft are crimes involving moral turpitude, see In re Boyd, 593 A.2d 183, 184 (D.C. 1991), and concluded that the felony statute under which respondent was convicted plainly falls within the category of theft/larceny offenses justifying a finding of moral turpitude pose. The Board noted further that New Jersey courts have described the offense covered by the theft by deception statute as one involving fraud, State v. Rodgers, 554 A.2d 866, 870 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) ("taking by fraudulent means"), cert. denied, 563 A.2d 821 (N.J. 1989), which makes the offense one involving moral turpitude per se under In re Bond, 519 A.2d 165, 166 (D.C. 1986). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to June 24, 1991. *fn5


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.